Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner-Bank (Bank of Baroda, successor of Dena Bank) challenged the Part-II and Final Awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Mumbai. The Respondent, a Typist-cum-Clerk, was dismissed on 15 February 1993 for alleged misappropriation of Rs.10,000/- while acting as Cashier on 14 September 1991. The CGIT, in Part-II Award dated 28 May 1997, held the enquiry officer's findings as perverse. The Bank's challenge to this award was dismissed by the High Court, Division Bench, and Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court permitting challenge to the Part-II Award if the Final Award went against the Bank. The CGIT then passed the Final Award on 24 April 2012, setting aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement with 60% backwages, as the Bank failed to lead evidence to justify the action. The High Court upheld both awards, finding that the CGIT correctly held the enquiry findings perverse due to lack of credible evidence, and that the Bank's failure to lead evidence after the perversity finding justified the reinstatement order. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Perverse Findings - The CGIT held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse as the evidence of the sole eyewitness did not inspire confidence and there was no corroboration. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the Bank failed to lead independent evidence to justify the dismissal after the perversity finding. (Paras 5, 13-20)
B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Backwages - The CGIT directed reinstatement with 60% backwages after setting aside the dismissal. The High Court upheld the award, noting that the Bank did not lead evidence to justify the punishment and the Respondent had made good the shortage. (Paras 7, 21-22)
C) Industrial Law - Enquiry - Standard of Proof - While domestic enquiries require only preponderance of probabilities, the Tribunal can interfere if findings are perverse. The High Court held that the CGIT correctly applied the test of perversity. (Paras 9, 13-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the CGIT's Part-II Award holding the enquiry officer's findings as perverse and the Final Award directing reinstatement with 60% backwages are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Part-II Award dated 28 May 1997 and the Final Award dated 24 April 2012 of the CGIT. The CGIT's direction for reinstatement with 60% backwages was confirmed.
Law Points
- Perverse findings in domestic enquiry
- Reinstatement with backwages
- Preponderance of probabilities in domestic enquiry
- Scope of judicial review of enquiry findings
- Effect of failure to lead evidence after perversity finding
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 1902
Writ Petition No. 9564 of 2012
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Netaji Gawde, Mr. Rahul Sanghvi i/by. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Respondent- Mr. Devshi Valji Kundhadia, present in person.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Part-II and Final Awards of CGIT in an industrial dispute regarding dismissal of a bank employee.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-Bank sought setting aside of CGIT awards and upholding of dismissal order.
Filing Reason
Petitioner-Bank challenged CGIT's Part-II Award holding enquiry findings perverse and Final Award directing reinstatement with 60% backwages.
Previous Decisions
Part-I Award (26 Dec 1996) held enquiry fair. Part-II Award (28 May 1997) held findings perverse. Writ Petition No. 4631/1997 dismissed (23 Apr 2009). LPA No. 266/2009 dismissed (22 Jan 2010). SLP (C) No. 17542/2010 dismissed (16 Jul 2010) with liberty to challenge Part-II Award if Final Award goes against Bank. Final Award (24 Apr 2012) directed reinstatement with 60% backwages.
Issues
Whether the CGIT's Part-II Award holding the enquiry officer's findings as perverse is sustainable.
Whether the Final Award directing reinstatement with 60% backwages is justified.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner-Bank argued that the CGIT erred in holding findings perverse as there was direct evidence of eyewitness Suryawanshi; domestic enquiry requires only preponderance of probabilities; the Bank was prevented from leading evidence due to pending litigation; the Supreme Court permitted challenge to Part-II Award.
Respondent argued that he was innocent, made good the shortage, the Bank's Manual permits no action if shortage is made good, and the High Court had already upheld the perversity finding.
Ratio Decidendi
The CGIT's finding of perversity in the enquiry officer's report was upheld as the evidence of the sole eyewitness did not inspire confidence and there was no corroboration. The Bank's failure to lead evidence after the perversity finding justified the reinstatement order. The principle that in domestic enquiries, the test is preponderance of probabilities does not preclude the Tribunal from interfering if findings are perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
CGIT first took up the preliminary issue of fairness in the enquiry and delivered Part-I Award dated 26 December 1996 holding that the enquiry held against the Respondent was legal, fair and proper.
CGIT thereafter delivered Part-II Award dated 28 May 1997 and holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.
The Apex Court however clarified that if the Final Award went against the Petitioner-Bank, it was open to it to also challenge the interim Award dated 28 May 1997, if otherwise permissible.
In absence of any evidence being produced by the Petitioner-Bank, the CGIT made final award dated 4 May 2010 holding the dismissal order dated 15 February 1993 to be illegal and unjustified and directed reinstatement of the Respondent with 60% backwages.
Procedural History
Show cause notice issued 4 Nov 1991; enquiry held; dismissal order 15 Feb 1993; appeal dismissed 10 Aug 1993; reference to CGIT registered as Reference (CGIT) No.1/12 of 1995; Part-I Award 26 Dec 1996 (enquiry fair); Part-II Award 28 May 1997 (findings perverse); Writ Petition No. 4631/1997 dismissed 23 Apr 2009; LPA No. 266/2009 dismissed 22 Jan 2010; SLP (C) No. 17542/2010 dismissed 16 Jul 2010; Final Award 24 Apr 2012 (reinstatement with 60% backwages); present writ petition filed and admitted on 14 Jan 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970:
